the difference between creation and evolution is not about the evidence, but the presuppositions by which we interpret the evidence

[...]

Evolution is not based on evidence that speaks for itself; rather, it is a deduction from their own presuppositions—a priori commitments to materialism and rejection of a designer, because they can’t bear a ‘divine foot in the door’. Therefore they have no right to object when Christians start from their own presuppositions.

[...]

Indeed, if an evolutionist is demanding that you renounce your faith unless you can answer a particular objection, then remind him that the leading evolutionists did not when they had unsolved problems. Indeed, today, so many evolutionists demand that creationists abandon biblical creation because of an apparent anomaly, but if an evolutionist can’t answer something, then it’s ‘the whole purpose of science is to solve problems.’ If that’s true, then the same allowance should be made for creationists. And obviously, the truth of Christianity doesn’t entail infallible knowledge by every Christian! http://creation.com/...n-genome-simple

Arguments explaining scientific evidence change with new evidence, but the presuppositions remain the same whether the person be evolutionist or creationist. Don't let evolutionists convince you that they are more open-minded because their eyes are not on scripture. I have seen many arguments rebutted, and then defended numerous times like a ping-pong game. Most notable is the carbon 14 in fossils, evolutionists asserted it was contamination (neutron-capture from other radiometric elements), but evidence then suggested that electron capture could not have explained this phenomena (read or listen here: http://kgov.com/dating-a-dinosaur). Then there is Dinosaur DNA as well.

This article is making an important point for people that are new to defending your faith; that your faith should be firmly planted in God's word. God's word is divine revelation, and has been tested and shown to be reliable: http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=81041 Do not let your faith waver in the wind. Your faith literally stems from the Rock of our Salvation, Jesus Christ. His personal appearance on this earth, and His ministry, and the historical recordings of these leave no doubt that He existed, He was a man who claimed to be God, He came and died for our sins, and rose again. We don't have faith in a dead man, we don't have faith in a fiction novel. Our faith is in the true living God.

Right. And I have repeatedly been confronted with hard-headed individuals who stubbornly cling to the notion that evolution has nothing to do with origins; As if green lights have nothing to do with giving the 'go' for street traffic. The talk/origins definition of the Law of Biogenesis is a joke.

Quote: "The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules."

Not only are they wrong but they lied. First of all, it was Darwin's 'bulldog' Thomas Huxley who coined the phrase, "Law of Biogenesis" and defined it:

Yet, most of our counterparts refuse to admit that Darwinian theory is connected to Biogenesis -- by necessity...unless of course one wishes to believe that life on earth was planted here by space aliens in very ancient times. Not many are willing to believe that.

On top of that is the issue of spontaneous generation of life from non-live. As you can see, talk/origins did not deal with that honestly either. "Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed." What a lie. What Pasteur disproved was that life cannot come from non-living matter, period. (Omne vivum ex ovo = All living things come from an egg). Plus, spontaneous generation was later referred to as 'chemical evolution' (Alexander Oparin) and still later as 'abiogenesis'. They are all the same thing: life generating from non-living matter, something that has never been observed a single time in the history of empirical science. That being so, is it any wonder that neo-Darwinians deny that there is any connection between evolution and origins?

Yet, most of our counterparts refuse to admit that Darwinian theory is connected to Biogenesis -- by necessity...unless of course one wishes to believe that life on earth was planted here by space aliens in very ancient times. Not many are willing to believe that.

This is merely punting the problem to another planet, and it causes more problems than it solves, such as survival of these molecules or organisms for millions of years in space, and survival when they entered the atmosphere and slammed into the earth.

On top of that is the issue of spontaneous generation of life from non-live. As you can see, talk/origins did not deal with that honestly either. "Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed." What a lie. What Pasteur disproved was that life cannot come from non-living matter, period. (Omne vivum ex ovo = All living things come from an egg). Plus, spontaneous generation was later referred to as 'chemical evolution' (Alexander Oparin) and still later as 'abiogenesis'. They are all the same thing: life generating from non-living matter, something that has never been observed a single time in the history of empirical science. That being so, is it any wonder that neo-Darwinians deny that there is any connection between evolution and origins?

Here is the thing, if someone denies abiogenesis leading to evolution, then they are accepting Intelligent Design for the first cell since it is the only option left. Aliens don't solve the problem, since they would need to evolve somewhere else. There simply isn't enough time in the universe to be honest. I also explained above that this creates more problems than it solves. If you reject a creator, then you are left with naturalism; a presupposition of natural events leading to the first organism, and without this, there is no evolution. Claiming evolution and abiogenesis aren't linked (given a naturalistic worldview, or at least rejection of a creator) is like trying to claim that evolution and natural selection aren't inextricably linked. You back yourself into a corner. Given that abiogenesis has so many limitations; biochemicals breaking down rapidly, molecules required to be near each other in space, water needed for one process but destroying another process, etc, I can only see one option, and that is God creating life.

This is merely punting the problem to another planet, and it causes more problems than it solves, such as survival of these molecules or organisms for millions of years in space, and survival when they entered the atmosphere and slammed into the earth.

Here is the thing, if someone denies abiogenesis leading to evolution, then they are accepting Intelligent Design for the first cell since it is the only option left. Aliens don't solve the problem, since they would need to evolve somewhere else. There simply isn't enough time in the universe to be honest. I also explained above that this creates more problems than it solves. If you reject a creator, then you are left with naturalism; a presupposition of natural events leading to the first organism, and without this, there is no evolution. Claiming evolution and abiogenesis aren't linked (given a naturalistic worldview, or at least rejection of a creator) is like trying to claim that evolution and natural selection aren't inextricably linked. You back yourself into a corner. Given that abiogenesis has so many limitations; biochemicals breaking down rapidly, molecules required to be near each other in space, water needed for one process but destroying another process, etc, I can only see one option, and that is God creating life.